I said medical staff has immunity when acting under the direction of aw enforcement in these cases. You then went to something else.

No. You said the "implied consent" laws were constitutional because they only impose civil punishment. Then you went to something else, claiming the
nurse had nothing to lose by following the officers orders, because she has immunity.

These are 2 different subjects, and my concern on this issue doesn't have anything to do with nurse's or the hospital's liability.

If only civil penalties can be applied for refusal to submit, and an unconscious person can't refuse, then investigators can't use that law for
criminal investigations, where criminal charges may be applied if the results come back positive for illegal drugs. They must have a reasonable
suspicion of a DUI before they can draw the blood.

Wubbels' attorney, Karra Porter, said the state's implied-consent law "has no relevance in this case whatsoever under anyone's interpretation. ...
The officer here admitted on the video and to another officer on the scene that he knew there was no probable cause for a warrant."

The change:

The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said
the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.

The excuse:

Charles Idelson, a spokesman for National Nurses United, said a nurse's prime responsibility is to be a patient advocate and protect patients,
especially when they can't consent themselves. Meanwhile, police are investigators and have to capture forensic evidence, which in the case of a
blood draw, is decaying with every passing minute, said Ron Martinelli, a forensic criminologist and certified medical investigator. "For the
officer, the clock is ticking," Martinelli said. But even with those different objectives, police and medical professionals routinely cooperate and
conflicts like the Utah case are infrequent, Martinelli said.

Why the excuse doesn't work for me:
The patient was a victim. He was not under arrest. Supposedly he was under no suspicion of wrong doing. If the demand for the blood was from the body
of the dead man that they show as responsible, then it would make sense, but the blood of the victim carries no weight in the criminal investigation.

Because I work for the State and they take any case where there is a potential of kick back very seriously, I know that we will be hit with a bunch of
in-services and a review of our policies for evidence collection.

It doesn't bother me, I kinda like in-services, if there is something new to learn, and if it will prevent a problem from arising. The job is
stressful enough, I welcome any measures that will make it easier or more efficient, or helps me to avoid landmines.

No the draw was done. It is why the nurse was released. If you cant follow along why should anyone respond to your post?

You are so full of it! The draw was done by the ER team, as a matter of routine. It wasn't done for the police. It wasn't done because the police
asked for it. The police will need a warrant if they want to get those results, just like they needed a warrant to do their own draw!

a reply to: dreamingawake>>> What I'm getting is that the patient in question was the truck driver who was injured when the
fleeing car struck his semi. The driver fleeing from the police was killed. So the truck driver could legally charge the police with his injuries as a
result of the police chase. IF the police could prove that the truck driver was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, they could cite that as a
contributing factor to the crash and possibly use that against him if he were to press charges against the department. So enter gestapo Payne who
wanted that blood and wasn't going to let the law get in his way. Right now the police chief's ass is on the line, Payne's ass is on the line and
Payne's supervisor's ass is on the line. By the time the nurse and the truck driver sue them they'll be wiping windshields for a quarter at the
hospitals entrance. These cops need to not just lose their jobs, they need a little prison time to help them get their heads together.

I am curious at why the hospital toxicology report from the blood drawn on admission would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the DOT, and
why the DOT was not the one requesting this required information. The first blood draw would be the most relevant if alcohol or illegal drugs are the
substances being looked for.

G
I have no argument with the requirements for employment and licensure with the DOT, my argument is that it was not necessary nor appropriate for the
detective to request to draw the blood at the time of his demands. It would have been odd even if the patient was awake and in a regular hospital bed.
Since the patient was in a burn unit in critical condition, not under arrest, and not under any suspicion of guilt, the demand is very strange and his
actions on refusal is more than questionable.

This had nothing to do with the DOT and their requirement for licensure. That is why I feel something else was going on here.

Yes. The guys who have been saying the same thing to each other for 40 pages now? They're having trouble with this not very complicated idea. I
don't understand why they can't see the real issue. It's almost as if they aren't very bright, but I know that can't be true, with all of the amazing
copy and pasted paragraphs on legal statutes that they've been repeating over and over at one another, this entire thread. It almost makes one wonder
if they can even read.

originally posted by: windword
No. You said the "implied consent" laws were constitutional because they only impose civil punishment.

Correct - Utah and other states whose implied consent laws only result in civil (administrative action) are in fact constitutional and werent affected
by the scotus ruling. The states, like N. Dakota, whose implied consent laws impose criminal punishment are the ones affected by the scotus ruling.

However in all states exigent circumstances for a warrantless blood draw are permissible.

originally posted by: windword
Then you went to something else, claiming the nurse had nothing to lose by following the officers orders, because she has immunity.

Correct - Medical staff acting on the direction of law enforcement in blood draws are immune to civil and criminal liability for those actions. The
entire situation resides with the officer only.

originally posted by: windword
These are 2 different subjects, and my concern on this issue doesn't have anything to do with nurse's or the hospital's liability.

Yet linked and provide context for what was going on.

originally posted by: windword
If only civil penalties can be applied for refusal to submit, and an unconscious person can't refuse, then investigators can't use that law for
criminal investigations, where criminal charges may be applied if the results come back positive for illegal drugs. They must have a reasonable
suspicion of a DUI before they can draw the blood.

Refusals (conscious people) result in punishment (refusal to take any tests) and fall under whats called per se.
Unconscious persons fall under implied consent where they give consent for testing if they are unconscious.

Because some states dont apply criminal charges for refusal, normal application of the law is restricted. The 4th amendment applies to the government
and requires probable cause by a person acting under color of law. There are exceptions the warrant requirement and the application of the 4th depends
on the situation and location.

Another example is your 5th amendment right. In criminal law it is absolute. The jury cannot infer anything from a person who invokes their 5th.

In civil law it is not and a person who invokes the 5th in civil matters can actually be required by a judge to answer questions. Refusal in the civil
case allows the judge to direct the jury that they can infer guilt from the refusal to speak.

Finally - after rading more articles on this incident the officer explained to the nurse they were trying to protect the semi driver. I am now
wondering if they werent in fact using the federal DOT requi9rements for commercial truck drivers involved in major accidents. In those case a
warrantless blood draw is mandatory.

No the draw was done. It is why the nurse was released. If you cant follow along why should anyone respond to your post?

You are so full of it! The draw was done by the ER team, as a matter of routine. It wasn't done for the police. It wasn't done because the police
asked for it. The police will need a warrant if they want to get those results, just like they needed a warrant to do their own draw!

Sheesh!

Feel free to point out where i said it was done for the police and please stop lying about what others say.

Not at all.. I deal with significantly more problematic people than online users.

Nurses protecting their patients rights one of them?

I have had issues with medical yes. Nothing to the extent of arresting but have come close and that would have occurred at the direction of the PA who
was called to the Hospital.

In their zealousness to do their jobs at times they fail to recognize the limits of their authority when it comes to law enforcement investigations.
As I said articulate a medical reason why the patient cant be seen and we are fine. Blocking law enforcement simply because the nurse is on a power
trip and we have issues.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.